Talk:Dance party broken up by police in Utah, USA

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

! Could someone please correct the date in this article - the rave and policy action took place August 20, not August 22.

protected template removed page is now protected per archiving rules. (Protected by Chiacomo (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)) Notice removed due to archiving --Brian McNeil / talk 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random header[edit]

Here is a legal rave party being shut down by conservative republican forces:

Amateur video NOTE: This particular video has been censored from this wikinews article by a "Christian Right" moderator named Mrmiscellanious.

The problem is with the page that the video is on. I've had a look at the page, and it is certainly POV (point-of-view). I support Mrmiscellanious in his removal of the link from the article, and also his banning of the IP addresses that continue to add the link to the article. Please read the information on Neutral point of view. - Borofkin 04:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that if you read the info on that video's page, it's some of the SAME info that you can find in the source links below it. You might as well remove over half or more of the other sources below as well. Another video is titled "fascist" but I don't see that getting deleted. JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE with the text on the video link, does NOT make it biased. The REAL point is, it's a small file and universal format that is GREAT for the many people who are still on dial-up connections. There is plenty of opposing views for them to make up their own minds. If you are going to worry about a link with info you think is biased, then you better start looking at ALL the rest of the links in that article and get chopping. Otherwise, please just offer the small Flash format movie and quit acting like selective nazis.

Cowicide, please see my comment below. (edited sig - forgot to sign in) --Myrkabah 06:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cowicide: Please check your hotmail account. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can read my responses below. Chiacomo, I don't have access to Cowicide's hotmail account. Cowicide is not one person anyway... hahaha....


Whoever is working on this article, please review the NPOV policy. --Mrmiscellanious 03:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is that better? --203.7.224.214 04:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there, keep working on it. I'd ask a few people to review it before going to {{publish}} when you feel it is complete. Also, I think the video should go under the 'sources' as we really aren't supposed to link to items such as this (which might be withheld evidence awaiting a trial). --Mrmiscellanious 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough.. thanks for your help. I am trying to get some more people who were there to come here and provide accounts. --203.7.224.214 04:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i think it's ready.. noone seems to be coming forward with more accounts but I think most of the neutral stuff is already there...who should I get to review it and how? --203.7.224.214 05:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know the exact location of this party? It help with investigation by neutral third parties and help identify the authorities involved in the arrests and party breakup. --24.182.60.134 06:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the revision to the article addresses the questions. --24.182.60.134 06:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was one of the most biased articles I've ever seen:

  • No quotes from police.
  • Referring to police as a "horde".
  • Referring to police as "armed", in an attempt to make them seem menacing, when in reality all US police officers are armed.
  • Referring to anonymous sources such as "a well respected DJ", and no named sources.
  • Talking about partiers "leaving quietly" seems rather unbelievable given the circumstances. At very least I would expect them to be running and screaming, if the part about the beatings and tear gas was true.

I attempted to make the title less biased, but it was reverted back to the biased version. I will try again, then recommend the article for deletion if the biased title is reverted again.

StuRat 09:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with StuRat. Please keep this page at "Utah dance party broken up by police". Dan100 (Talk) 09:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
StuRat, here's a line from the firsthand accounts I'm talking about below. "As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of f***ing TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene." The person didn't mean "quietly" as in "not noisy", they meant "Without resistance, peacefully". This seems to be the general concensus among eyewitness reports. --Myrkabah
Perhaps it is the general consensus of eyewitness reports, excluding police. This is my objection, things being stated as fact which are only one side of the story. StuRat 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the general consensus of eyewitness reports, AAAAAND... The video. :grin: (I'm just being an ass - the article is fantastic as is. Thanks, StuRat, and everyone else involved, for helping out. I'm really happy that word is getting out about this.) --Myrkabah

That was my original title in the first place. I have no idea why it was changed. But thank you for your help in neutralizing the article, StuRat :) --Static 10:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your original title isn't biased, but does have one shortcoming; readers in Australia may not know that Utah is in the US (do you know all the states in Australia ?). That is why I suggest "Dance party broken up by police in US state of Utah". StuRat 11:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now seems biased in favor of the police - it does not mention that one of the concertgoers attacked was a small female, nor does it have any actual quotes from concertgoers except for "We feel like we have a right to attend drug-fueled events!" There are all sorts of accounts by attendees, including the aforementioned female, along with a photograph of her injury. The talkthread is here - http://utrave.org/showthread.php?t=20020&page=1&pp=10 - can we include some *real* quotes from these people, please? --Myrkabah

I should clarify - the issue that detractors of this action are taking is not that the party was shut down - on the contrary, a promotor from Taiwan (I think) posted an account of a party shutdown in her country, where the police used whistles to get attention and directed people to their cars. The issue here is that the use of force was excessive, and that numerous partygoers were injured during the shutdown. The article as it stands severely plays this down. --Myrkabah
How do we know that any thing in that thread is true? People have never exaggerated claims of police brutality, have they ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 18:11, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
How do we know that anything in the police statement is true? Police have never downplayed claims of police brutality, have they? In the interests of NPOV, statements from both sides need to be included. (Check the thread - the posts in question are along the lines of "My name is ______, and I was at the event on the night of whatever, and this is my account of what I saw." I don't see any reason why quotes from these accounts can't be included.)--Myrkabah
Hi, I went ahead and edited the article to include the allegations of excessive violence - I hope the manner in which I did it is acceptable. (I usually ask other people to do it for a reason - I'm not exactly wikisavvy.) I have a photograph of an injury allegedly substained during the raid - would this be appropriate for use in the article? --Myrkabah
I would say the photo is OK, although photos after the fact are not "evidence", as they don't show the source of the injury. Just be sure to include terms like "injury allegedly sustained during the raid" in the caption. As for who to believe, all parties seem to have an interest in lying (police to cover up bad behavior and ravers to get charges against them dropped and win lawsuits). The ravers all seem to be anonymous in this article, however, so would suffer no consequences from lying. An identified police officer, however, could be punished for lying to the media, if this is later proven with video or other evidence. This punishment could either come from the police, the courts (by awarding more money in the lawsuits), or electors, who might very well vote out a Sheriff whose employees have been shown to lie to the public. For this reason, I would take the police accounts as more reliable. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any reliable bystanders, with no interest in lying, as everyone present appears to have been police or a raver. In this case, I would permit anonymous testimonials from ravers, with great reluctance, only since there is no other way to get that side of the story. StuRat 23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK - could I send someone the photo, and have them put it up? I do not know how to upload pictures to Wiki. Thanks. Nevermind, I figured it out. --Myrkabah

Spanish Fork canyon, Utah[edit]

Wasn't this party near the area of the earlier truck carrying explosives that overturned and blew a whole in highway 10?

A humongous dance party, a humongous police response. Can't the party organizers of an event in the scope of 1500 to 3000 attendees make better arrangements with local law enforcement so that innocents present don't get dragged down in the dragnet.

Unfortunately, many times, especially in as conservative areas such as Utah, attempting to work directly with local law enforcement on an event such as this is basically just making an appointment for a bust. ----Myrkabah 01:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heard that :( Edbrown05 02:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:There are many instances where police have posed as being cooperative only to instigate actions such as this.

Police statement[edit]

If there is a police statement, or if the user can get an interview with an official to tell their side of the story, it would be great to be added in here. As of still (15:10 UTC Monday), this article has some POV issues (mainly just the attendee's opinions that the raid was intrusive). Hearing from the other side would be nice. --Mrmiscellanious 15:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is developing into a very good piece of original reporting. It may be that there is a statement in the police from the local paper mentioned in the story but I do think it is quite balanced. The police's actions and reasons are right at the top and the views mentioned are people's points of view, which seems fair. If quotes can be included from the police great, but if they can't be attained it shouldn't stop us publishing, imo. ClareWhite 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • While that may be true, the majority of the article is nothing more than saying that the police were way out of line in their performance. That is an opinion. Noting why the police were there, how they got the tip, why they made the raid as such, would be much better in this article and could make it very well written. --Mrmiscellanious 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "That is an opinion." Most news is opinion, really - it's just a matter of how the opinion is reached and communicated. And if they were using tear gas to break up a peaceful dance party, they were out of line. It's ok to say that. Neutral doesn't mean pointless.

Publish?[edit]

Has this article been revised enough that we can go ahead and publish it? --Myrkabah

I think so. Could you please get a username so we can get to know you a little better? Thanks, NGerda 21:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Let's publish this badboy, then. =) Myrkabah
OK! :D -- NGerda 21:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations Static,203.7.224.214,69.162.177.145,Myrkabah etc.!!! Finally some fantastic original reporting !!![edit]

This is the best original story I've seen on wikinews in the past 6 months..complete with video and photos of nazi-type swat cops in body armor and ski masks in August with nothing better to do than bust up a party. Congratulations Static,203.7.224.214,69.162.177.145,Myrkabah ! What a story; right out of "1984"! Paulrevere2005 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We must keep our personal feelings out of the reporting, however. -- NGerda 22:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree this is a great article. We should have a hall of fame or wikinews:Featured Articles to put articles like this in, like wikipedia does with w:WP:FA. (Assuming we doesn't alreay have one) Bawolff 23:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that I also think that this is a really well-done piece of reporting, and an excellent team effort. Tracking back through the history of this article gives a good illustration of the wikinews structure working really well. I think that the writers named above deserve credit, as do Dan100, Sturat, Ngerda, and all the others who pushed for a more neutral line. The end result is all the better for having to navigate through the disagreements. Rcameronw 00:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you [Paulrevere2005] - I'm quite flattered. This is actually my first contribution to Wikinews. =) I've written my own article on www.everything2.com, if anyone would care to read it. It's titled [Utah Rave Bust - Versus 2] --[User:Myrkabah|Myrkabah]

Hah - there's actually a drum and bass track featuring samples from the video already available. Amusing. (http://www.edgey.net/mp3/tracker2.asp?trackURL=EDGEY-Residual_Burn.mp3) --Myrkabah

  • Thanks :) It is also my first appearance on wikinews. I just heard about this travesty and had to spread the word. Its not over yet, I foresee many follow-up stories as ravers hit the courts and there is rumours of protests taking place so I'll keep my ear to the ground. Big thanks to all the wikinews crew for giving us a voice!!! \m/ --Static 02:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was 24.28.243.25. (Before I signed up for an account.) --Myrkabah 02:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow ups[edit]

I'm creating this section of discussion to help keep track of the development of this story - first off, I spoke with KUTV News today about the horribly biased news story they presented, and a follow-up is being aired at 6:30 tonight due to the massive numbers of calls and emails they have received. (That news story is seriously shite - they actually say that the promoter "even hired security to make sure that people didn't bring their own drugs", obliquely implying that he was holding the event to make his own drug sales. They also referred to it as a 'drug party'.) I spoke with the webmaster at the station, and he assured me that the video of the broadcast will be available online, likely tomorrow. We may want to include that link. Also, local ravers are already looking into organizing a "Rave for your Rights" event, along with a special CD by artists from the show for fundraising for legal funds. Outrage over this incident is *huge* - people from as far as Finland, Germany and Taiwan have dropped by the Utah Raves site to express their condolences and shock at the events. --Myrkabah 02:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Below is an email sent from Sheriff Jim Tracy, organizer of the raid and head of the UCPD, to a concerned citizen who questioned the tactics used in the raid:

Jim Tracy [1]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:53 PM
To: Linda Taylor
Subject: RE: Complaint regarding recent police action

Thank you for your concern, all of your facts are incorrect and the gross exaggerations on the internet are just that, exaggerations and lies. Please view the "video" frame by frame, it shows two people, the two who assaulted our deputies, being taken to the ground and handcuffed, not assaulted. There were two people that were dealt with in a physical manner after kicking and assaulting the Deputy. No gas, no dogs, no tasers, and no military or guns were pointed into any ones face or were used. This gathering was illegal and a venue for rampant use of illegal drugs.

I am "the establishment" and you will choose to call me a liar and I will not waste any more of my time arguing with those that have political agendas that include allowing or promoting the breaking of law.

Sheriff Tracy

Wow. No DOGS? What?! --Myrkabah 06:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured?[edit]

Could we possibly make this story a front page feature? --Static 02:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is, Static. --Myrkabah 02:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
lol so it is... ignore me.. I was looking at the gaza story --Static 02:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie format[edit]

I have a nice editing package I can use to enhance images from the movie, if I can get them in AVI or MPEG formats. Does anyone know how I can get them in those formats or convert to them ? StuRat 03:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you can easily convert MOV clips to MPEG or AVI. Don't know what software, though. If your editing package is as nice as I think, it should be able to do it.  ;) -- NGerda 03:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)


I personally have used mov2avi, but there are some others that you can find here --198.252.201.22

What about this line?[edit]

"A source inside the Utah government reports that this action was undertaken out of fear that the Rave would be used to rally support for the protest against Bush's upcoming Utah visit."

I'd like to know who that source inside the Utah government is.

  • Sounds like a bunch of conspiracy to me. The reason they were there was for the underage drinking, drugs, and driving under the influence. Not to break up a protest against Bush (even though that might have been planned and was thwarted). --Mrmiscellanious 15:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on dailykos, which is where it may have migrated to here. I agree that unless it's better sourced, it should be removed. --Myrkabah 15:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know who that source inside the Utah government is.

Sounds like total BS to me. Unnamed sources that say bizarre things like that are usually made up. StuRat 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed the line. Too unsubstantiated for this article. --Myrkabah 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dailykos is more reliable than Voice of America which we use all the time around here. Also, I'm getting a little annoyed at the same people plowing in all the time to water down any news that might reflect badly on the Bush administration by throwing out terms like "conspiracy" or "bizarre". This is EXACTLY the type of thing that Karl Rove(preempt anti-Bush rallies) does all the time and anyone who follows U.S. news knows that..so the idea is certainly not bizarre and the word "conspiracy" applies how???? Neutralizer 18:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because you all feel as if the police "conspired" to bring down the concert because of the Bush bad-mouthing. That simply is not the case, hard and in stone - the Sherrif's office specifically states it was for the allegations of sexual abuse, and the widespread use and distribution of drugs and alcohol, as well as a place where DUI's start. --Mrmiscellanious 02:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What nonsense.None of us,including the editor above,know for sure who gave the order for this raid nor why.It could have been a Senator or the Governor or the police chief and any of them could have been asked to do it by one of their superiors or political associates.If that were the case, there would be no need for the police to know who wanted the raid or whether there were ulterior motives. The police would have just gotten a call saying that the rave needed to be busted for drugs and maybe weapons. The only real non-POV fact about whether the raid was orchestrated to decrease the attention to the Bush visit is simply that we can't say for sure that it was; and we can't say for sure it was not. Please let's not be using the old "conspiracy" strawman anymore; ok:). Neutralizer 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralizer, it might interest you to know that I am somewhat anti-Bush, but don't consider this relevant to portraying an unbiased piece of news based on facts, not baseless allegations. I called 'saying this event was a planning stage for an anti-Bush rally' "bizare" since it would be impossible to plan anything at such an event, as people couldn't hear each other to talk and also, due the total lack of any evidence for this, which would be expected in the advertisement, first hand accounts, etc. A single anonymous quote is hardly evidence of anything. I could provide such a quote saying it was aliens who broke up the party since it was near their spacecraft landing site, LOL. StuRat 17:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important to me whether some-one is pro-Bush or anti-war or both; what I am saying is that if the single anonymous quote is not newsworthy; then it certainly doesn't require labeling or categorizing as being bizarre or conspiracy or any other such POV adjectives..it's the unwarrented and unsupported POV labels that make me question that much more whether the decision to yank the quote is reasonable. As far as the quote goes; what's the big deal? Just report it and where it came from...let the readers decide. Neutralizer 03:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You implied that my motivation was to "water down any news that might reflect badly on the Bush administration", so it was relevant to that claim. There is also the saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For example, if a single unnamed source said gas was $3 a gallon in San Francisco, that isn't a very extraordinary claim, so I would be inclined to trust it. If the same unnamed source had claimed the price was $1000 a gallon, I wouldn't believe it (or publish it) until I had some definite proof. So, my statement that the claim is "bizarre" was my way of saying it is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof. StuRat 23:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; now I understand; I suppose to me the claim does not seem extraordinary so that's why I didn't understand the use of "bizarre"; but to you it is extraordinary. Who said "viva la difference"? Thanks for continuing the discussion point til I "got it". Neutralizer 02:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original reporting[edit]

I would be curious to know what original reporting was involved in the creation of this article, as it isn't explained here. Thanks.--Pharos 00:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm guessing most of it came from the two-minute long video clip, which I hope this article isn't wholly based on. I do believe most of the quotes from the party-goers were made from a few members here. --Mrmiscellanious 02:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of guessing/speculating; why not look at the article's history and ask the early contributors? Or better yet; go ahead and do some original reporting yourselves; wikinews needs a lot more stories like this one. Neutralizer 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the history you will notice that I spent alot of time collating eyewitness reports long before this story was reported on any other news sources.. therefore I believe it was Dan100 who deemed this article to have original reporting. --Static 06:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utah party and jack booted thugs[edit]

  Nice police State! :) I gotta make sure not to "try" and party in Utah.

If you Mormons think it's all right to disregard the rights of your young people by using the stupidest faction in your midst, "& Cops are notorius for being thick" to bully them into submission, good luck. You will lose in the end and your stupid cop bully dogs will turn on you the moment the Federal Gov. takes over. 

 Yes Cops in Utah are f-cking retards....they are retards everywhere they appear but especially in Utah. They were the football jocks and dimwits that irritated people in Highschool. Now they will kill you and think tthey are doing something grand.

Alaisha Matagi and Paul Maka[edit]

I've added more information about the identities of the detainees in the video - their identities have been confirmed by concertgoers present at the bust. --Myrkabah 06:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music-versus-Guns.org[edit]

I understand that you're trying to keep the number of sources down, but I believe a link should still be given to Music-versus-Guns.org as this will be the central point for all actions that will be taking place by the community against the state. Also they will be linking to this article so a reciprocal link will help both sites gain a higher google pagerank... Maybe we can link outside the sources section in the main text? --Static 06:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Go ahead and add it, but remove one of the extra news articles, please. (I'd recommend the drug policy alliance one - it doesn't seem to add much.) We're just trying to keep that list reasonable. Thanks. --Myrkabah 06:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Also - don't list google pagerank as a reason for adding a source. Wikifolk get their hackles up all kinds over that type of thing. :grin: I agree that if the music-versus-guns site is eminently relevant, but google rank is a poor reason to add it, so don't add it for that reason - add it because it's relevant. =) --Myrkabah 07:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
fair enuff :) --Static 07:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America out of controll[edit]

Welcome to the American nightmare, Bush's police state. Where is the Democracy? Where is the freedom? Is it hiding behind the Big Lie?

Mass Gathering Permit Confirmed[edit]

Source here: http://www.sploid.com/news/2005/08/23/utah-officials-rave-had-all-permits-118793.php (edit: BTW I am 209.95.72.185 - forgot to sign in) --Myrkabah 18:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something we should consider including, even though it seems to be an anti-authority publication and is only talking about the Health Dept permits, not the other requirements or the allegations of illegal activities at the rave, so should not be taken to mean the rave was "totally legal". StuRat 18:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that has confused others - while the police stated that they have a health department permit, the mass gathering permit they needed comes from a subsidiary of the health department. The site is referring to the mass gathering permit, specifically. Given that we've been given a contact name, department, and permit number, we can report this information with quite reasonable certainty. Take special note of this, from a Daily Herald editorial. ""...we are concerned about the process that led to this raid, starting with Utah County permits. Commissioner Steve White was strangely evasive on this question. When asked point-blank whether a mass-gathering permit had been issued, he said he would not answer. He referred the Herald to law enforcement sources and the county attorney's office."" (edit: Also, the article does not state the rave was 'totally legal', only that they had the permits the police stated that they did not have.) (edit edit: You know, I just realized that I came off as a bit confrontational, seeing as you're agreeing with me and all that. :P Oops. My bad, dude. =) )--Myrkabah 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Flash MOV Video[edit]

This guy (68.3.52.158) is spamming the external media trying to drive traffic to his personal site. Can we block him? How? --Myrkabah 22:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is also editing out my comments on his behavior - this is obviously malicious. --Myrkabah 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: Looks like he's just trying to add another format in Flash for those who don't want to use Quicktime or Windows Media - Not spamming.

  • Either way, I've told him a hundred times that MOV, WMV and RM are all the formats you need for a video. I'm not too crazy this guy is linking to them from his personal site, either. --Mrmiscellanious 22:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: I've removed the link again. Upon reading the site it links to, it is not something Wikinews can endorse as a reputable source. Have the guy remove the POV on that page, and then it may be fine. But as of now, no way can we link to that page. --Mrmiscellanious 22:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are LOTS of people who don't want to use the Quicktime and Windows Media plugin. All the other videos link to biased information as well... even the mainstream news videos have been very biased and not presenting all the facts. Let people make up thier OWN minds and choose their OWN format.

  • Find an unbiased source, or link to the SWF directly. WMV and MOV are plenty enough compatible with over 90% of the viewers on this website. No need for any more formats, it's unnecessary. --Mrmiscellanious 22:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- I don't know how to make it link directly. If format choice are uneeded... then why have any choices? There are people that would rather use flash video over Quicktime and Windos Media because of privacy concerns with those formats anyway. Like I said, all those other videos go directly to biased reports as well. Why are you picking on this one guy so much? It's just another format choice and it's not harming the article. If you can find an unbiased link, I'd love to see it. Hahaha....

NO, not OK... two formats is not enough. Quicktime and Windows Media (especially) have privacy concerns. Flash video isn't going to hurt anything, it just offers another option. I've also noticed the flash version is much smaller in file size than the others and that will allow people on dail-up to see the events. LOTS of people are still on dial-up you know. Also, all one has to do is go to the root URL of the other videos and there is biased info available from there... easily seen. I mean, get REAL. Some of the video downloads are titled "fascist.." etc.

May I suggest a compromise? How about deep linking to that movie as well? The URL is [2]. That way we can avoid the biased site. --Deprifry 23:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

/you guys have more guts than i do with cowicide/ i did a search on wikipedia.com/ a hackergroup? /they could probably bring this whole site down or send someone else to do it at will/i'd just leave the video there and leave well enough alone

Are we supposed to get scared now? --Deprifry 23:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

/Just seems like more trouble than it's worth, that's all. It's just another video format... DROP IT PEOPLE, MOVE ON.

Yes, which makes you wonder why people really are so intent on censoring it. The people here, Mrmiscellanious especially (which is surprising considering is admin capabilities), don't seem to understand NPOV. NPOV doesn't apply to external links, which is what this link to the SWF movie is. Wikinews and the various Wiki* sites have many biased external links. In fact, just look at the "sources" section in this wikinews article, it's FILLED with biased sources. Please, PLEASE, actually read the NPOV before abusing your authoritative status to falsely convince people that you actually know what you're talking about. That's an abuse of power and it is not up to the admins to decide whether or not to include that link. njyoder 70.17.80.150 07:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FINALLY, someone who understands NPOV policy. Thank you, njyoder... my response is below...
AGREED, Mrmiscellanious is clearly abusing his admin powers here. Its just some text on the side of the page, I honestly didn't even read it until I saw the controversy here. However, the text on the side of that page is not particularly informative. So it should be presented in a list of formats, MOV, WMV, RM, Flash, etc. and not as a stand alone link. If we give it a stand alone link, we need to think about what the total page is, but if we link to it as just another video, then we don't need to worry about what else is on the page. Nyarlathotep 13:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WAAAH! They won't let me link to my personal webpage on an objective news article! OMFG, I'M BEING OPPRESSED! CENSORED! FASCISTS! Perhaps we would be more open to your arguments at this point if you had calmly discussed it here the first time the link was removed, instead of bullishly and childishly adding it over and over again as we removed it, adding requests each time for you to stop. If anyone is abusing Wikinews here, it is Cowicide, as can be seen from the fact that we had to lock the article to stop his editwar. You contribute nothing to the article except a link to your personal website, and you accuse US of abuse? Please. --Myrkabah 14:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Myrkabah... Your response is pretty hysterical and very... telling. You don't mention NPOV once, I notice. When you say, "...You contribute nothing to the article except a link to your personal website...", you are blatantly stating an untruth. Actually, the link would have contributed a VIDEO size & format that's great for dial-up users. You continously ignore that fact. I'm glad you admit that you and the others were a party to an "editwar". If you actually READ POV policy, you'll find that those who participate in these exchanges ARE NOT the ones who are supposed to "lock" an article. It's supposed to be a disinterested third party who does it after evaluating both sides. This did not happen.
You also say, "...we removed it, adding requests each time for you to stop...". There you go again, blatantly stating an untruth... where is the record of these requests? I didn't see them until after you guys had already rabidly removed the video multiple times despite the fact that there was a group of others who kept putting the video back in place. Mrmiscellanious lied, "...I've told him a hundred times that MOV, WMV and RM are all the formats you need for a video....". Actually, the truth of the matter is this... Mrmiscellanious never ONCE said that before, much less "hundreds" of times to the Flash video uploaders. You guys just kept removing the video WITHOUT comment OVER and OVER. I checked the talk page and it wasn't brought up until after almost a day and a half of this mess. So quit lying that you guys took the "high road" in all of this. You broke policy repeatedly and continue to do so now.
Myrkabah, like I said.. your reaction is very telling and as more and more people voice themselves, the more hysterical you seem to be getting. Maybe it's time you stepped aside and let true NPOV policy decide what to do here instead of your ego? You guys REALLY need to go back and throughly READ NPOV policy and sidestep your libertarian/conservative/ego or whatever views and/or problems you have that's blocking the proper enforcement of NPOV policy.

Whoever you are, please sign up for an account and sign your messages so we can get to know you better. What I'd like you to do is refer to the "History" page of the article, where in the comments on the revisions, I asked "Please stop adding this." Also, the fact that the change was reverted each time is statement enough that the addition is unwelcome. Why did you continue to add the video when it was clearly unwanted? Why did you not discuss it calmly on the talk page the first time it was removed? Your behavior is completely unnecessary. I, for one, am willing to allow a flash video to be added *IF*, and only if, it does not reside on a personal webpage. Upload it to a file hosting service, and I'll reconsider my opinion, but until then, I consider your additions to not be in good faith. Thanks. I am not the person who locked the article, that was Chiacomo, who was not involved in writing the article. And why, dear sir, would we get hysterical over a lower bitrate version of the same video that's already linked in the article, twice (thrice?)? You act as if we're afraid for the information in the video to get out, but we've already provided it in multiple formats. Your rhetoric makes no sense, whatsoever, unless you consider that you have a personal stake in having your website linked to this article. --Myrkabah 18:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myrkabah, thanks for your response. Once again, I see that you avoid discussing specific NPOV policy. You state above, "I...am willing to allow a flash video to be added *IF*, and only if, it does not reside on a personal webpage." How about this, Mrrkabah... you properly enforce NPOV policy and take your personal preferences OUT of this? If you want to change NPOV policy then you need to take that up with the creators of WIKINEWS (whom I am contacting now). For now, you have to deal with NPOV policy and NPOV policy clearly allows this video to be linked. Your, "Please stop adding this" comment isn't good enough, by the way... you need to point out just WHERE it abuses NPOV policy (which it doesn't)... instead, you just engaged in a rabid "edit war" because "you don't like it". That is NOT good enough. That is WHY WIKINEWS made a NPOV policy in the first place, so it can be FOLLOWED. Once again, if this isn't about ego/agendas/whatever and you sincerely care about NPOV policy and the WIKINEWS readership then WHY don't you just drop it and allow this video that, ONCE AGAIN, happens to be a great size & format for dial-up users.... why don't you allow it and stop this nonsense? I want people who are on dial-up to be able to easily see that video because it makes WIKINEWS MORE accessible. Once again, NPOV policy isn't "rhetoric".. and if it "doesn't make sense" to you, then you need to talk with the WIKINEWS creators about changing it to fit your personal preferences. Good luck with that.

If you are taking this up with Wikinews creators, then I am willing to go with whatever decision they make. Thanks. --Myrkabah 19:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new links[edit]

Not sure if these links are relevant enough to add to Source segment. I'm not allowed to edit the page even after I registered moments ago. I always use Preview before Save page, but upon submitting a minor edit it turns out the Wikinews on the raid is protected...

  • The page has been protected, for good reasons. I would advise against just adding more sources, as if you are not including anything new to the article from those, you do not need to cite any more sources. --Mrmiscellanious 00:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Mrmiscellanious is right wing, here is what he objects to and fears:

Cowicide, for the record, I am a total screaming liberal libertarian, a raver, and a DJ, and I 100% agree with Mrmiscellanious on the subject of your flash video. I also removed it at least five times. Despite the fact that I'm sure we disagree on certain things regarding this, MrMisc. has been extremely, EXTREMELY helpful in insuring that this article is as high quality and NPOV as possible. I appreciate his efforts, and offer my unreserved thanks. I do not feel the same way about you. Please, just drop it. (edited sig - forgot to sign in) --Myrkabah 06:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MrMisc doesn't actually u nderstand NPOV policy or he's intentionally abusing his authority to deceive people into thinking he does. NPOV doesn't apply to external links. Adding external links doesn't make the article itself any less NPOV. I'm shocked that no one has bothered to mentio this. njyoder 70.17.80.150 07:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, njyoder. This is exactly why this had infuriated me so much. This is selective censorship instead of across the board policy. VERY unprofessional and very much an abuse of power. ... and if NPOV DID apply to all external links as they portend, then why the hell are there all those other sources with incredibly biased external content allowed? ALL I wanted to do was post a video that was shorter and more user-friendly for dial-up users. Demanding that Cowicide change his website just to allow this was unreasonable and unfair and NOT proper NPOV policy. You people STAND CORRECTED. Let the Flash video link be posted so people on dial-up can have better access to this event. And... Myrkaha... it does NOT matter that you think you are a liberal or whatever... the hypocrisy still stands. [It will be interesting to see if this commentary is deleted like some others have from here that Mrmiscellanious didn't agree with.]
Agreed, clear admin abuse. But, as I say above, the Flash should be linked as just another format, not as a stand alone link.
If political affilation doesn't matter, then why call MrMisc. out as right wing? And I'm sure your faux-indignation had nothing to do with the fact that the video was on your own personal site. Your opinions have been duly noted but, as far as I can tell, the decision still stands. Move along, nothing to see here... --Myrkabah 14:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, MrMisc. calls HIMSELF out as right wing on his bio page. Second of all, Myrkabah, you missundstood what I was saying. The point is, I don't care that you claim to be a liberal. You should enforce NPOV policy properly and you are NOT... so "being a liberal" on my side or whatever means nothing to me. In other words, claiming to be of a different political persuasion than Mrmiscellanious doesn't give you any more right to improperly enfore NPOV than he does. Get it? And yes... after IMPROPERLY enforcing NPOV policy with participation in a rabid "edit war" I do have to wonder if Mrmiscellanious' extremist right-wing views come into play. If Mrmiscellanious had performed proper NPOV policy in the first place and had listened to reason (you guys never ONCE responded about the smaller file size, etc.)... I never would have questioned his motives (or cared) in the first place. He is obviously biased against this video link and so are you. BUT, if it is within NPOV policy.. your opinions really don't matter and you should step aside and allow the flash video link here:
* Amateur video (FLASH Movie format/dial-up quality)
Quit breaking WIKINEWS NPOV policy and allow the video to stand without engaging in a rabid "edit war" against it. It's time to put aside your egos or whatever your problems are and do the right thing here and properly engage in NPOV policy. Or, honestly... should any of you guys even have admin privileges anymore?

I do not have admin priviledges, and your webpage is unwanted. Thanks for your input. --Myrkabah 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...your webpage is unwanted..." So what? Who cares what YOU want? YOU are NOT NPOV policy. NPOV policy dictates that the VIDEO link is ALLOWED. So why wasn't your IP banned after you engaged in a "edit war" anyway? Look, you are obviously a bully and instead of listening to reason about file size, format and NPOV policy... you get your admin pals here to break NPOV policy with you and have a video that would be great for dial-up users removed and engage in an "edit war". There are also people who want the video... but, you know what... it doesn't matter! We need to follow WIKINEWS NPOV policy and let the readers make up thier own minds. I love how you ignore all the points against you (especially NPOV policy) and just respond, "your webpage is unwanted". That's great.. Hahaha... the almight ego in full effect. Once again, all I ask is that we follow NPOV policy and let dial-up user get better access to WIKINEWS. BRING BACK THE FLASH VIDEO LINK OR CONTINUE TO BREAK WIKINEWS NPOV POLICY.

As I stated above, if you are taking this up with the Wikinews creators, I will be more than willing to adhere to their decision. Thanks. --Myrkabah 19:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"...I will be more than willing to adhere to their decision..." You are already NOT adhereing to thier decisions by NOT following NPOV policy.
  • Woah, woah... woah. Yes, I have right-wing views; but show me an edit where I have extremely favored them and not the Wikinews NPOV policy in an article. Now I've had enough of this - just because I'm an admin doesn't give me a "you can't edit a page" blockade (especially when it comes to spam, such as this link). Promoting such a homepage on this site could be considered spam. There is NO REASON for the flash video, and even less of a reason if there is a bunch of biased text surrounding the video (which someone is not willing to remove or provide a direct link to the video, meaning they want visitors from this site to read their opinions on the event). I will not allow Wikinews to become a portal for bias. Now please, what part in the NPOV policy am I breaking for removing the link that is, undoubtedly, spam? --Mrmiscellanious 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrmiscellanious; I'll call your bluff;This is the history of your edit;[[3]] where you referred to the killed Brazilian on the London Subway as a "suspicious character" in a new biased,POV headline created by yourself to which you moved the story with no justification whatsoever.cur) (last) 19:14, 16 August 2005 Mrmiscellanious m (Leaked Documents Show Major Errors In Killing Of Brazilian By Police In Londom moved to Leaked documents detail suspicious character's death in London)

. Every bit of info within that story and sources showed he was NOT suspicious at all; then, as now, you went on the attack against the person trying to rein in your out of control POV. Neutralizer 00:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC) ____________________________[reply]

"...There is NO REASON for the flash video..." SIGH... Once again, you guys IGNORE the fact that Flash video is much smaller in file size than the other video alternatives and there are others here that obviously agree. That makes WIKINEWS more accessible to those on dial-up. Why don't you care about this?! Mrmiscellanious, you might as well call almost ALL the other links and sources in that article "spam" if you are going to call this link spam:
* Amateur video (FLASH MOV format)
Yes, there is a small amount of text with that video... but that does NOT matter. If you READ NPOV policy you'll see that it doesn't apply to external links. Look, obviously your agenda/ego/whatever is getting in the way here. I hate to break it to you, but I do NOT have access to that website and its content and I think it's ridiculous that you ask me or anyone else to remove text from an outside video source just so it fits your personal preferences OUTSIDE of NPOV policy. It's a video format that some people want here and beyond that, the link is within NPOV policy. You should lose your admin priv's and so should anyone else here who repeatedly isn't enforcing PROPER NPOV policy. Banning IPs left and right and engaging in an "edit war" over a link to a Flash video that's a great size for dial-up users is ridiculous. You guys are acting like a gang of bullies instead of professional admins, etc. Just follow NPOV policy and leave your egos at the door please.
If having a flash version of the video available is so important to you, why not upload it to a file hosting service and use that link instead? Also, some of the text on that site is blatantly deceptive - I work in internet advertising, so I know that whole "everytime you click on these links it costs conservatives money" shpiel is a lie - it makes YOU money. In fact, having text up of any kind to talk users into clicking on Google ads is a violation of Adsense policy, so I believe I'm going to go ahead and report your site to Google administration. Toodles. --Myrkabah 20:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried emailing Cowicide several times and asked about linking directly to the video with no response. I don't think he cares. Good luck with your "revenge" against him because of my attempts to have a dial-up friendly Flash video link in the article. Once again, though... you completely IGNORE NPOV policy and act like a bully. Congrats, Mr. Toodles.
I'm through talking to you. If it's not your site, you shouldn't have any problem with it being reported. We'll consider adding a flash video when it isn't hosted on a page that deceives users into clicking on ads. Have a nice day. --Myrkabah 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already wished you good luck with that. It's been that way for years with all kinds of conservatives attacking the site and contacting Google. Have at it, brudda'. As far as your opinion that it "deceives" users into clicking ads? Are you insane? It says that it costs the advertisers money when you click on them and any IDIOT knows that money would go to whomever host the ads. How is that "deception"? Hahaha... Once again, this is all beside the point that THE VIDEO IS GREAT FOR DIAL-UP USERS and you IGNORE NPOV and... once again, you guys are acting like a gang of bullies instead of professional admins, etc. with threats, IP bans and edit wars. This is about your EGO and not about trying to "protect" WIKINEWS readers. Now you're grasping for straws and you look pitiful. I personally tried to link directly to the video but it made the video jump to the size of the browser window, but then I thought... WTF? Why should I or Cowicide have to change anything when it does NOT goes against NPOV policy and it's really just about... your egos? Keep ignoring the fact that the Video is dial-up friendly and that the video link does NOT violate NPOV policy.. you just keep digging yourself deeper.

Typo in article - someone with the ability, please fix[edit]

This part: "Both Matagi and Maki are charged with failure to obey a police officer and resisting arrest - Paul is also charged with interfering with police." --- Please change "Maki" to "Maka", and "Paul" to "Maka". Thanks.(Edit: Also, this source - http://forum.suijuris.net/showthread.php?t=3486 - doesn't seem to add much. Should it be removed? Thnks.) --Myrkabah 06:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop fighting about POV and just report the facts... you don't[edit]

You guys are so worried about "No Point of View". Yet the article clearly has a point of view. When you use lines like "Several attendees felt they should have the right to attend an event where drugs may be present, so long as they don't personally use them." It implies the 'drug' nature of the party, which isn't relevant. The point of this whole thing is not that yet another rave was shutdown for drugs or lack of permits, BUT that for the first time, instead of sending a handful of uniformed officers with holstered guns to shutdown an event, they send about a 100 guys in full military garb with machine guns and body armor. You guys should spend less time worrying whether to link to a different video format and more about all the information available that you have not used (to date). There are interviews with the security team (all of whom were arrested for the drugs that they CONFISCATED, and also arrested for helping the cops). There are numerous statements and more than one email from Mr. Tracy, with many outright lies... "no dogs" despite dogs obviously in helicopter footage and heard in 1st person vid. "no tazers" despite helicopter footage saying "taze the guy on the 4 wheeler". He says the girl with the red shirt was only forced down for cuffing after resisting and that she not beaten. Have guys even looked at the Sherrif's webpage with pictures, names and charges of all people that night. Look at the picture (enlarged, ie open in own window) of the girl with the red shirt (Alaisha)? Ever seen a pretty slender face like that with such a swollen nose? From handcuffing?

So stop fighting about POV in video links and actually keep looking to the factual information that is still becoming available. Reporting the truth sometimes requires a Point of View!


We have already reported that the permits have been verified. The fact that they are in full paramilitary gear is quite clear. It has also been reported that some of the drugs confiscated were those held by security guards, who were arrested. The state of Alaisha's nose is pure opinion - unless it's actually bloody and/or broken, it's not worth reporting. I would, however, be interested in the helicopter footage you are referring to. --Myrkabah 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just watched the video - The officer is saying "Search the fourwheeler! Search the fourwheeler!" If you can give me the exact point in the video where what you're saying is said, I'd be much appreciative. Also, do us all a favor, and quit complaining about the video. If you have new information to offer to the article, by all means, offer it, but your bitching about the superfluous video format doesn't help your credibility any, nor does not signing your post. I will concede that Alaisha's nose looks swollen in the mugshot, but, since we don't know what her nose looked like before, we can't report as a 'fact' that her nose is swollen. As for Sheriff Tracy lying, the article, while not specifically stating that he lied, does confirm that information that Sheriff Tracy had stated turned out to be untrue (regarding the permits). Saying "He lied" is not objective journalism - we report the facts and let the reader decide if he lied or not. From the facts in the article it is pretty obvious he did. (And yes, we obviously looked at the sheriff's site with pictures and names and charges - it's linked in the sources! Try reading the article thoroughly before you go off on us.) (Edit: Also, the email is referred to in the article - where Tracy stated that Alaisha and Paul were taken down for assaulting a police officer, and it is clearly stated that neither of them are being charged with this offense. We cannot say it didn't happen, however, because we weren't there watching at the time. As they say, "Just the facts, ma'am.") --Myrkabah 17:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Full night vision chopper video released to media' 1:43 at http://www.music-versus-guns.org/media.html. Listen to the audio in this video (which is generally unintelligable). At 23:38:28 someone clearly says "Taze the guy on the 4wheeler, he's gonna get somebody hurt." And, while you are there watch the interviews with the security team . Very damning to the police.

So when the police are so obviously lying... doesn't that upset the POV balance? There were comments about not wanting to use partygoer testimonials because they will be biased... but the official (and unofficial) statements seem quite a lot more suspect and obviously not stating the truth or greatly exaggerated the truth in many cases. Did you guys report that the gun (singular) found was in the home of the private property owner? This is half the cops justification for the display of force (the other half being the drugs, most of which was confiscated by the security).

Also I apologize if my comments were premature.... I see that permit issue is now settled. (Though that is still almost irrelevant since lack of permits doesn't justify military-style raids on unarmed civilians).

As for the firearm, you are correct - the firearm belonged to the private property owner, and it was the only one found. It was not on his person when it was discovered. The article as it stands, when listing the offenses, does give the impression that multiple firearms were found. Can we add in this information please? Thanks. --Myrkabah 17:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error in article regarding permits.[edit]

The article states this: "Utah County requires a permit, bond and county commission approval for all gatherings with more than 250 people present." The actual law, however, is this:

13-4-2-1. Required.

No person shall permit, maintain, promote, conduct, advertise, act as entrepreneur, undertake, organize, manage, or sell or give tickets to an actual or reasonably anticipated assembly of two hundred fifty or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for twelve (12) or more consecutive hours, whether on public or private property unless a license to hold the assembly has first been issued by the County Commissioners.

Note this: an actual or reasonably anticipated assembly of two hundred fifty or more people which continues or can reasonably be expected to continue for twelve (12) or more consecutive hours. In order for the party to require this permit, it would need to have 250 people *AND* go on for more than 12 consecutive hours. DJ time slots and Pro Audio/Lighting contracts show that the party was only intended to go on for 10. Please revise. --Myrkabah 17:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Search the 4wheeler" comes later. I don't see any way to interpret the "Taze the guy on the 4wheeler" as anything else.

I'm checking the video again - if that statement is there, then I appreciate you letting us know. Could you please sign up for an account, and start signing your messages so we can get to know you a little better? You just type in four tildes, and it will automatically sign it for you. Thanks. --Myrkabah 17:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Erikdj 17:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Erik. I just listened to the video again, and you are correct. It clearly says "Taze the guy on the four wheeler, he's going to get someone hurt." At this point it is quite apparent that the press releases and information (including the email above) released by the police department contains inaccuracies and outright lies. This is EXTREMELY relevant to the article, that the police were dishonest in their explanations of the situation. Can we edit the article to present this? --Myrkabah 18:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been unprotected. --Cspurrier 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Sorry about going off about the videos... I just felt like there were facts omitted and therefore a bias. Reading the comments it seemed like more energy was going into whether linking to a video on a biased site was appropriate then finding more facts so that the article would be more truthful in its POV. Seems my comments weren't entirely useless. (PS IMHO, MOV and especially WMV are both rather lame formats so alternates are appreciated). Erikdj 18:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I have added the relevant information to the article. Thank you for your assistance. Other Wikifolk, please review. --Myrkabah 18:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and sorry about going off on you - I can have a hair trigger at times! ^__^;; --Myrkabah 18:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on dogs... if barking in video isn't enough to damn the police (who might claim it was dogs belonging to partygoers), you can clearly see at least one dog accompanying the 'soldiers' (its hard to call them anything else) in that night helicopter video. For example around 23:38:05 you can see a dog in near dead center. These are the soldiers as they are approaching the dancers who still don't know what's coming and are still dancing. Erikdj 18:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I went ahead and added that, too. Great investigative work! --Myrkabah 18:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the dog in the video. But credit for "taze the 4wheeler" would go to some guy in the utrave forum. There is a lot of good info there, including a 2nd more personal response to someones email to Sheriff Tracy. Erikdj 18:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and I just posted that there, too. Thought it was news to them. Thank so much for your input, Erik. --Myrkabah 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't hurt for it to be posted multiple times. Obviously others hadn't seen it either. The signal-to-noise ratio there has gotten much worse over the past couple days. You should have mentioned the dog to. I don't know that saying 'taze' is evidence that they had tazers... could just be a general word they use for 'nonlethal' weapons like stun guns. And maybe they had tazers and didn't use them. Erikdj 19:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, except I don't see how it would be remotely feasible to use a stun gun on someone who is driving a four wheeler. A taser is the only thing that would make sense in that situation. --Myrkabah 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ps. hats off to you Myrkabah... you sure are busy with all the updates, comments and time to post in utrave:) Erikdj 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm working, too. :grin: (I'm a fast typist.) --Myrkabah 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no journalist, but I wonder if the sentences about Sheriff Tracy's email and the dogs and 'taze the 4wheeler' might not be more in context and make more sense if placed futher down in the article after the bit about the sheriff's email refuting that anyone was beaten. I suppose that might bias things by casting those statements into doubt... but IMHO its the sheriff making doubtful statements so any implication they are doubtful come from him. Erikdj 19:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made that change. Thanks for the suggestion. (edit: forgot sig) --Myrkabah 19:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some ideas on wikinews and news publication i.g.[edit]

Personally I didn't find wikinews its guidance and the people working with it very helpfull, especially for people who post the firt time. Of course they claim it open so everybody can post, but I found it really confusing and frustrating. It's a general problem that the moderators are more focused on the geeky stuff, more into coding than the actional news (from my short experience). Wikinews is just average news site, still I wish they could add more stories like this. I suggest to make the posting process more userfriendly, maybe they look at it from the perspektive of people who used to use it, and not from the perspective of a single person that has a news that nowhere else appears.

Something that really makes me angry is mass media and state or police statements considered credible or the plain truth per definitionem. At the example of the whole reporting story of this news, which I followed almost every hour (counting from the time I first read about it in an email!) I see how many mistakes and half true half made up "news" are written and how many simple lies the media just copies again and again and over and over (although they know it's a lie!). So demanding from single people without a lot of research equipment, time or money to be neutral is actual non-realistic. If something just happened and it's hard to get 1st hand sources it's very unlikely to write a fact report, that later on doesn't have to corrected in most crucial points and details. So by the time the truth all the facts surface it's not regarded a news anymore. The trend is to post fast, so it's a news. Real journalistic work won't be awarded, it simple comes to late.

Usually we don't get to know all the facts and details of a single story, so we won't realize the dodgyness of the fast majority of news reports (excluding maybe sport and wheather). BUT THE BY FAR MOST shocking aspect about the whole thing is, it usually just depends on one (or few) activist(s) to make a news public (most people aren't that independent and active and are easily disencouraged). So how many news, real skandals (not he fabricated mass media trash) do we miss everyday from all parts of the world. The chances to know about this police assault in other major (not to talk of minority) languages and and its publication in media outside the USA is close to ZERO. It scares me if I imagine what I don't get (shall not and mustn't) to know and it happens every single day!

Resisting Arrest?[edit]

Doesn't "Resisting Arrest" or even "Disobeying a Police Officer" require that the police identify themselves as such and be recognizable as police? These still don't look like police to me (though maybe the small shoulder patch you can see on one soldier says 'police', can't tell in this video). Nowhere in the video do you hear anyone (crowd or soldiers) saying the word "police". Just barked orders/threats and confused kids saying "I have no idea. I think they're serious, they've got guns man!" Since the video is unedited, you can tell that it is only seconds from the arrival of the soldiers until they have multiple people on the ground. No time for the police to identify themselves and then have someone resist or disobey. From the dancers' point of view, soldiers with guns are suddenly everywhere without identification as police. One certainly wouldn't assume they were police (maybe you'd think they were a national guard unit that got lost while practicing crowd control techniques for Iraq!). Most people probably wouldn't resist a soldier with a gun (and I suspect the people on the ground didn't), but is it illegal to resist or disobey someone who hasn't identified themselves as police? This is probably the wrong venue to post this, but if the police didn't identify themselves then I would think that would be an important piece of information. Erikdj 20:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The video shows what the video shows. But it didn't capture EVERYTHING at that party - and the low quality of the distributed files makes items extremely hard to make out. So I wouldn't rely on it much, I'm sure A LOT more went on at that party than what the video shows. --Mrmiscellanious 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that a large percentage of people at the party described the SWAT members as "soldiers" or "National Guard", so this may be a good point. None of the eyewitness accounts I saw mention the people identifying themselves as police either. While a good point, though, the veracity of the 'resisting arrest' charges are, I believe, beyond the scope of this article. --Myrkabah 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sheriff email (since you asked on utrave)[edit]

The 2nd more personal email from Tracy... http://www.utrave.org/showpost.php?p=312562&postcount=32 I think the first more boiler plate one is easy to find. Also posted by yoschie. Erikdj 21:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Danke. --Myrkabah 21:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good detailed interviews with witnesses at http://www.mypetgoat.tv/audio/FTG_Volume2_Utah_Rave.mp3 . Definately underscore that point the nobody knew they were cops and they refused answers of who they are. Erikdj 21:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also addresses the oft-reported mysterious girl with the drug-overdose ... Erikdj 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more communication from Sheriff Tracy... http://www.utrave.org/showpost.php?p=315272&postcount=24 . And even more on the 'overdose' ... Erikdj 22:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presence and Usage of Tasers and Dogs[edit]

I have exchanged emails with Sheriff Tracy, and he has explained the email about the tasers and the guns - dogs and tasers were present, he says, but he claims that they were not used. The man on the fourwheeler was "a second's time" from being tased before he stopped. Please change this: "An email from Sheriff Jim Tracy stated that dogs and tasers were not used in the raid, however, dogs can clearly be heard barking in the amateur video, and in the infrared helicopter footage released to the media, an officer can be heard saying "Taze the guy on the four wheeler, he's going to get someone hurt!" at 23:38:28 in the video timestamp. A police dog can also be seen in the infrared helicopter video at timestamp 23:38:05." to "An email from Sheriff Jim Tracy stated that dogs and tasers were not used in the raid, however, he also states that the tasers were not used on anyone, and that no dogs were deployed against concertgoers." I'd rather not unlock the article until the flash movie trolls go away.

I will continue speaking to him to aquire updated information for this article. If anyone has any questions they would like him to answer, please let me know, as I think I have established a fair working rapport with him. --Myrkabah 23:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work -- it is possible that the creation of another article is in order -- to deal with developments. This article, of course, is several days old and visibility is decreasing with each passing day. If you have enough content for a new article, please Be bold! --Chiacomo (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind - there's a lot of information to keep track of! --Myrkabah 23:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the flash movie link[edit]

I've read both sides of this and I really would like to have another movie that's small for dial-up users like me. I don't care about the rest of the content on that website. I just read the infamous POV policy and the link doesn't break that policy. So far, the consensus seems to swing towards people not really having a problem with the video except two or three people here [who I bet are on broadband connections]. Based on the fact that the video is tiny in size and uses the flash format, it's ideal for those like me who have slow internet connections. I'm going to add the link myself. If you remove the link, please state here which specific NPOV policy was broken before you edit it back again or I will consider that vandalizing. Thanks, Markel 202.54.51.5

Please note that open proxies are blocked on sight -- consider using your real IP address. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the video is hosted on, and directed to a page, on a homepage - and without any effort to link to it directly makes it spam. Also, considering you are adding the link from a proxy makes me suspicious. I've told you time and again, it is fine if you do not link to a highly biased article - it makes it seem like spam. And from the actions I've seen from you, it seems as though this link is nothing more than that. --Mrmiscellanious 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure this has nothing to do with your right-wing beliefs, right Mrmiscellanious? This video does NOT break NPOV linking policy. Read the others above who have already tried to explain this to you.
  • As I said before, I don't really care. I will not allow Wikinews to become a portal to bias. If you haven't already, read the disclaimer on my opinions. And I'm still waiting for you to show me where I have ever embedded any of my bias in an article. Excluding redundant links does not count. --Mrmiscellanious 03:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK... Mrmiscellanious, you clearly state above that you "will not allow Wikinews to become a portal to bias". OK, there it is in your own words. Let's see if you are a man of your word... remove this highly biased link from the article:
Utah County Departmental News. "Utah County Sheriff's Office shuts down Rave Party in Spanish Fork Canyon" — co.ut.utah.us, August 22, 2005
Let's see you worm out of this one. Otherwise, please start enforcing proper NPOV linking policy and allow the flash video link. Asking that the website from an external link be changed to suit your needs is WAY outside of NPOV policy. WHY allow this video? Because the flash video is SMALL (much smaller than the other videos) and great for dial-up users; it makes the video more accessible to a wider audience. Your hypocritical excuses are wearing thin. Do the right thing, unlock the article and allow the video to be linked and let's move on. 68.3.52.158
  • Why does this link matter that much to you? You are DEMANDING the linking of that video so others can read that text. No, I will not remove that source - it is a source which the user is required to LINK TO when using information from that SOURCE. The video has two links already. --Mrmiscellanious 19:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mrmiscellanious... your own words, "I will not allow Wikinews to become a portal to bias". The problem is, Mrmiscellanious... you allow a portal to the govt. source above which is a highly biased govt. account of the transpired events... and yet, you claim that your reasoning for not allowing the Flash video link is because it is a portal to what you percieve as biased text near it. This is hypocrisy at its worst. You've been caught with your pants down, Mrmiscellanious.
What I am "demanding" is that you be fair, quit being a bully and properly enforce NPOV linking policy which allows for this external video link. Once again... (sigh)... the flash video is SMALL and great for dial-up users. THAT is its main purpose. Asking me to change the content of my website that contains the video is ridiculous and WAY outside of your bounds. Your dictatorial approach towards this matter is ruining this article and the spirit of WIKINEWS. Just follow WIKINEWS NPOV linking policy across the board and put your ego/agenda/whatever aside... and lets move on to issues that really matter.
By the way, you can unlock the page. I will not add the video and I ask that everyone else stop trying to add it as well until we come to some kind of compromise here on the talk page. That way at least this article can progress with updates. -Cow 68.3.52.158
  • My pants are not down, Mr. Big Shot, and you are really tiring me. The government source is NOT BIASED, it's a collection of facts according to the sherriff's department. I trust the government to say the facts more than I trust you to tell me they aren't. --Mrmiscellanious 19:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'd like to thank you for your flattery in calling me "Mr. Big Shot", but I'm a humble bovine and simply calling me "Cow" will do. Sigh.. you honestly think this govt. source isn't biased towards the govt.'s case? Hahaha.. How about were they leave out the part where the security guards were confiscating drugs? There is not ONE mention of police dogs which are obvious throughout the video of the event. Hey, I'll stop there. OK, let's take "your word" (for what it is worth) that the govt. source is not biased at all. How about THIS source in the article... THIS isn't biased?

Crooks and Liars "Utah Ravers attacked." Crooks and Liars, August 22, 2005 or maybe: "First hand account posted on dance music forum." 404audio.com, August 21, 2005

Now are you starting to see the can of worms you are opening here by attempting to break NPOV linking policy??? Once again, just add the video on its merits as a great size for dial-up users and ignore the text you personally don't like... and let's move on. Your insistence on censoring the website that contains the video is against NPOV linking policy. Just follow the WIKINEWS rules; if you have issues with the WIKINEWS rules then please take them up with the creators of WIKINEWS and see about getting them changed to suit your personal preferences. Meanwhile, the Flash video needs to be allowed up there. You can even add a disclaimer to it if you'd like saying it contains "editorial content" or whatever, I don't care. Why don't we push aside the ego here and compromise? - Cow 68.3.52.158

Coverage in german (indymedia)[edit]

i don't understand why it is not possible to edit this report. isn't this a wiki? Mrmiscellanious looks a bit autoritarian to me. hey, just let it go! where's your wiki-spirit?

however, i just wanted to contribute a link to indymedia germany: Paramilitärisches Kommando stürmt Rave bei Salt Lake City it's mainly a translation and summary of all the english stuff, but good to see the news spreading around the world. the article also links this raid with the stormings of other subcultural events (in czechia and germany). also i didn't find anything about this particular raid in the german wikinews.

free music for free people!

  • If you feel like you want to add bias, please contribute to Indymedia! We have policies here that you should respect and follow, do not come in here acting like you are the highest member in society and you can do whatever you want. Furthermore, if you all have such a problem with me "abusing my authority", you can always list me for De-sysop'ing. --Mrmiscellanious 14:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed a bit harsh, Mrmiscellanious. Relax a bit. As for the German title, portraying the police as "paramilitary commandos" seems a bit strong. The term "paramilitary" is typically used, in English, to describe covert assassination squads in third world countries. The term "commandos" is typically used, in English, for a small military assault squad. You should do a direct translation and call them simply "polizei". As for the verb "storms", that also seems stronger than "broken up", but I'm not sure if the direct translation, "oben gebrochen", works in German. StuRat 17:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "paramilitary commandos" I think is my creation for the German news. imo it describes the SWAT best, check out the history of SWAT - they are tactics and so also used in riots and civil war like scenarios. But if anyone wants to work on the German wiki version, I'm down for that. I failed to sort out how the wikinews works, I hope wikipedia is easier to use.

Headline is misleading. Dance party? Police?[edit]

The headline as it stands now with "Dance party broken up by police in Utah, USA" is incredibly misleading. It sounds like a headline the authorities would come up with in the novel '1984'.

By far, this wasn't just your average "police" showing up to a small house party. There were paramilitary-style SWAT teams, weaponry, surveillance, a helicopter, dogs, tear gas, etc. commissioned in a police action against an event with over 1000+ people in attendance on private land. I think the title "paramilitary-style police" would be a fair compromise.

Dance party? The event was MUCH more similar to a "small concert" (after all, it was an organized event with over 1000+ people, security, restrooms, tickets, etc.). A "dance party" is something most people will refer to as a small, informal party in a house with a dozen or so attendees. At least add "event" to "dance party" unless the object is to diffuse and confuse the readership.

The headline should be along the lines of:

"Small concert broken up by paramilitary-style police in Utah, USA" or "Dance party event broken up by SWAT teams in Utah, USA"

The article's headline as it stands now is misleading and steers away from fact... it borders on the ridiculous. - Cow 68.3.52.158

For a strictly US audience I would suggest "Rave broken up by SWAT team in US state of Utah". Unfortunately, the words "rave" and "SWAT" don't have exact international equivalents. "Concert" is also misleading, because it implies a more formal event where people are seated (not moving around). "Paramilitary" is also misleading, as it implies third world assassination squads. StuRat 21:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, thanks for your input but I have to respectfully disagree with you. Webster defines "concert" as "a public performance (as of music or dancing)". Also, there are plenty of general admission concerts without seating; especially outdoor concerts. That makes "small concert" perfect for describing the event. I also offered "Dance party event" as an alternative as well. But, I think we can both agree that "dance party" alone really doesn't properly reflect the event that took place. If someone invited you to a "dance party"... would you really expect tickets, bathrooms, 1000+ people, health permits, security guards, etc.? I don't think so.
The international equivalent of "SWAT" would be "paramilitary-style police". And when you say, "..."Paramilitary" is also misleading, as it implies third world assassination squads..", I really can't agree with that. Third-world assassination squads are called "Death Squads" not "paramilitary". If that's the case, how do you explain when United States Homeland Security websites use the term "paramilitary" to describe their own forces? Surely, they don't mean to say they garner "Third-world Death Squads", do they? Hahaha... Therefore, I stand by my headline alternatives. Thanks again for your attention to this issue. - Cow 68.3.52.158
"Paramilitary" can mean "death squads", or something else. Obviously a dictator who has death squads working for him won't call them that, so he calls them "paramilitary units", instead. "Concert" also has many meanings, but I think the most common is an event with seating. I have noticed that dictionaries don't seem to list defs in order of usage, but instead show the original def first, and the modern interpretations later. For example, if you look up the adjective "gay", the most common modern usage, "homosexual", will be way down the list. StuRat 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If "paramilitary" often meant "death squads"... then how do you explain when United States Homeland Security websites use the term "paramilitary" to often describe their own forces? They surely would want to avoid getting confused with "death squads", wouldn't they? "Death squads" mean "death squads". Paramilitary means "...a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force"... a.k.a., local, state and federal SWAT teams, etc. Your experience of attributing paramilitary forces to mainly "death squads" is unusual to say the least. I'm sure 99% of those who participate in SWAT teams will strongly disagree with you that they are synonymous with "death squads" as would the majority of average citizens. As far as letting dictators define terms for us... I find that a little bit silly, I'm sure Kim Jong-II would define American movies as "propaganda".. but you don't see western articles referring to movies like "Toy Story", etc. as "this summer's greatest propaganda, Toy Story". This is because these loonies don't define words for the rest of us in the free world and free press. You might also note at the definition has only one meaning for "paramilitary", there's no mention or implication whatsoever that paramilitary is also regularly used instead of "death squads". Death squads are any of various right-wing vigilante groups whose members kill suspected political adversaries and criminals.

As far as the word "concert" goes... if you take a look at that link, it's the ONLY meaning that applies. There's really not much wiggle-room with this. On the other hand, "dancy party" is outright laughable... you can't even look that up in a dictionary and it's terribly subject to a huge variety of interpretations. But, most people would definitely think of a "dance party" as a small, unorganized event held in someone's home. "Small concert", on the other hand, is a much clearer representation of an event with tickets, bathrooms, 1000+ people, health permits, security guards, etc. "Dance party" doesn't cut it in this case. I hope you see my point. - Cow 68.3.52.158

You said: "I'm sure 99% of those who participate in SWAT teams will strongly disagree with you that they are synonymous with 'death squads' ". I never said any such thing. I said one meaning of "paramilitary units" (not SWAT) is "death squads":
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=57507&dict=CALD
Paramilitary: describes a group which is organized like an army but is not official and often not legal
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861723712
Paramilitary: using military techniques: using military weapons and tactics to fight within a country against the official ruling power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramilitary
Paramilitary: Some are revolutionary groups using traditional or guerilla warfare to oppose the government.
You said the paramilitary is " 'a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force'... a.k.a., local, state and federal SWAT teams, etc." SWAT teams are not a potential military force, I can think of no example where they were ever used in a war or military campaign. The National Guard is more like what that definition is talking about.
As for a "concert", that term normally refers to an event where live music is performed to an audience, and the dancing, if any, is by the performers. A "rave", on the other hand, has DJs who play recorded music and the dancing is done by the audience. Not the same thing at all. StuRat 00:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question still remains unanswered- If "paramilitary" often meant "death squads" or the other derogatory meanings you are putting forth... then how do you explain when United States Homeland Security websites use the term "paramilitary" to often describe their own forces? The overwhelming consensus (and commonsense) is that "paramilitary" means "using military techniques". You left out the relevant definition in your cambridge dictionary example: "Connected with and helping the official armed forces: In some countries, police and fire officers have paramilitary training.". Combine that with Webster's ONLY definiton: "...a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force". AND, speaking of wikipedia : "...The paramilitary operations of the CIA and Mossad (as distinct from their intelligence-gathering function) are one example. Police SWAT teams are another...". Also, I have never once asked that the SWAT teams be literally called "paramilitaries" in the headline, what I said was "paramilitary-style police".
If you can think of another way to describe the SWAT teams other than "police" it would be greatly appreciated and make the headline an accurate description instead of the misleading joke it is now. Calling them "police" and leaving it at that in the headline is very misleading. I disagree with you that they weren't a "paramilitary-style police", but if you can think of something better, please offer it.
As for your points against calling the event a concert, I think you are dead wrong. I think you are getting a bit over the top trying to redefine what a concert is and isn't. Haven't you ever heard of the term "rave concert"? I assume you are a sociable person, so you really should have heard it called that on numerous occasions if you are between the ages of 15-55. They are commonly called "rave concerts" because they are, indeed, a form of a concert. Once again, if you could think of ANYTHING besides "dance party" (which is laughable).. that would be appreciated. Like I've said repeatedly, how about "dance party event" or "dance music event"? You have to at least concede that this was more the form of an "event" than a "party". Most "parties" do NOT have tickets, portable bathrooms, 1000+ people, health permits, security guards, etc., etc.
"Dance party broken up by police" is a joke. Anyone who sees that initial headline without knowing its contents will wonder why it even made news. It literally sounds like a headline from the onion!! The reality is, this was a good-sized 1000+ person event broken up by an expensive and sizable police action with a helicopter, dogs, military-style uniforms and various military-style weaponry. Contrary to what you may believe, this is considered a highly unusual way to break up a "party" in the United States (so far). When this does become a usual event where paramilitary-style tactics are consistently used against groups of Americans you can call it anything you want because anyone in this country that is worth a sh*t will be gone or in battle. I'm not sure some of you realize the seriousness of this event. Why do you think it's making so much waves in America and around the World? Not because some "party" was broken up by the "police"... Hahaha... gawd... Anyway, I'm sorry.. I digress... Let's just get a headline that's not straight out of the onion, ok? Hey, and sincerely thanks for looking at this headline issue. - Cow 68.3.52.158
I actually agree that "dance party" is silly. I originally changed the title to:
"Rave" party broken up by 90 police in US state of Utah
I thought listing the number of cops would give a better idea of the "menace" they posed than anything else, and thought the rest of the world would have to read the story if they don't know what a rave is. But, my title was changed and I don't have any more time to argue about it tonight. StuRat 02:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's Saturday.. I bet your ass is going to a "dance party". Hahaha... ; ) Ironically, I have to return a video mixer I borrowed to a "dance party" warehouse tonight... how about that? Have a good night, StuRat -Cow 68.3.52.158

Nominations for 'great articles'[edit]

This looks like a candidate for such a nom-list. Good raw material, good neutral tone. Hard to imagine finding a comparable report anywhere else. Sj 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I believe it's at Wikinews:Featured articles. -- NGerda 06:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=utah+rave&go=Go no results, poor search engine or what?????

Bad search engine, dude. It was built for an encyclopedia. :P -- NGerda 06:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Additional links[edit]

OK, looks like the wikinews page remain locked due to passionate political argument. Here are a few more links for informational purpose:

SLC Weekly readers' comments in Letters (4th & 5th down). One polemtically compares Utah County Sheriff's Office to Mussolini's Blackshirts.

> "...remain locked due to passionate political argument..."
Sadly, I think it's more about agendas and EGOS than any valid "political argument" -Cow 68.3.52.158

I haven't seen much about the long-term aftermath of this event (legal proceedings, etc.). Here are two followup articles. Some of the information in them (including the ultimate dismissal of the party attendees' lawsuit) should probably be added to this article:

163.231.6.87 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Max Clarke[reply]

They can dance or they can fight[edit]

Dancing at a rave is much better than joining this http://AtWar.shim.net

{{FAC}}

I believe that the police force do use excess force on people[edit]

Thats what happend to us but mine was differnt. It was a drug raid happening at my sisters boyfriends house. We werent their, but my sister was on the phone with her boyfriend and while they were talking he told my sister he heard something and thought somebody was trying to break into his parents house (He is only 15)and my sister on the other line heard loud noises and yelling then the phone line went dead so she freaked out and she was worried about him so we went to his house to see if he was okay. We showed up and their was cars all over the place and the drug task force outside his house. I mean I didnt know that somebody in his family had those kind of problems involved in their family they didnt seem that type,but anyways we pulled up my little sister gotten out of my car and walked up to the men dressed in black. She had asked whats going on?? an officer asked her whats her name and she told them then he told her to turn around and put your hands behind your back and she turned around and he ran towards her and tried to tackle her to the ground I mean my little sister is 5 1 about 90 pounds and he was a huge men then I started yelling out of the car thats not right and I know my rights thats when he looked up and he backed away from her and stopped trying to tackle her to the ground then they all ran to my car yelled at us and arrested us.I mean my sister wasnt going to run away and for him to use that kind of force on her was not right. They didnt read us are right, I told them I wanted to call a lawyer they denied me that or to have the two minors I had with me to give their parents a phonecall and let them know what just happend they denied that to us to, they took pictures of minors and took their names, they searched my car without a search warrant inside out and then tried to charge me with anykind of charge they could come up with because we were telling them we know are rights and kept quiet also when spoken to and then in the end on of the officers had made a racial comment towards us. He had called us you mexicans and we told him we were not and he tried to correct us by telling us that "you have the last name gonzales so that makes you mexicans" we told him were not because that last name was given to us because we didnt have any names to begin with so we all were given hispanic first and last names. After we had told them that he went queit and asked us nicely what we were and after all that excess force they used on us,the yelling in our face, our rights being denied I wasnt going to be nice towards them and we kept quiet about what nationality we were. To make the clearer yeah we have hispanic last names, but so does my whole tribe were Native Americans and this happend in Provo, Ut see Utah isnt that safe as people thought it was.

This is typical institutionalized abuse in Utah[edit]

According to a Salt Lake Tribune article Weird Laws Clutter the Utah Code Utah parents can give written permission to teachers to hit their children even though none of Utah's public school do it. (Dan Harrie and Judy Fahys, January 18, 1998).

The law was passed in 1992 and says: "A school employee may not inflict or cause the infliction of corporal punishment upon a child who is receiving services from the school, unless written permission has been given by the student's parent or guardian to do so." UTAH LAW 53A-11-802 www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE53A/htm/53A0C034.htm

In other words, who ever a child lives with- be it an adoptive parent, step-parent, or uncle- can tell teachers to hit the child with a thick board leaving redness and welts. The thick board is called a "paddle" and was invented to beat slaves.

Since the end of slavery in 1865 America's schools and institutions have step by step abolished corporal punishment. Hundreds of global and US organizations like the United Nations, the US Parent and Teacher Association, and the National Association of State Boards of Education have passed resolutions against corporal punishment. They believe students have the same right to be protected from physical violence as do wives, animals, and criminals.

According to Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, "the LDS church has consistently discouraged this approach to child rearing. President Hinckley: "called physical abuse of children unnecessary, unjustified and indefensible." He said: "I have never accepted the principle of 'spare the rod and spoil the child.' I am persuaded that violent fathers produce violent sons. Children don't need beating. They need love and encouragement." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_intr.htm)


5 years after the 1992 Utah law was passed, the Utah Senate tried to ban school beatings completely.

The Salt Lake City Tribune wrote an excellent editorial supporting the proposal. It explained that beating students in front of their peers "implies they are less worthy of respect, less human than those whose whose parents say "keep your hands off my child." "Hands Off Those Students," 23 January 1997

But when the Senate sent the bill to the Utah House, the House disagreed and the bill died.


Now 10 years later the state Office of Education has a regulation against beating students but it does not override the law allowing beatings with guardian permission. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance stated in a 2006 report that while it is not practiced, some school districts "do not have a formal ban in place."

While school staff may be under the impression that it is illegal, some districts are still printing handbooks saying teachers can beat students with permission.

For example, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that San Juan School District's school board unanimously opposed the idea of ending school beatings. Its handbook states:

SAFE SCHOOLS POLICY A school employee may not inflict or cause the infliction of corporal punishment upon a student who is receiving services from the school unless written permission has been given by the student’s parent or guardian to do so. This applies to students under the age of eighteen (18), or under the age of twenty three (23) if the student is receiving educational services as an individual with a disability. http://www.sanjuan.k12.ut.us/Policy/6000/6500/6510.htm

How is beating students with thick wooden board part of a "Safe School?" And safe for who? Teachers who can't handle students criticizing them to their friends?

What kind of school lets guardians give permission to beat 22 year old disabled students?


Kane School District's handbook has the same policy. http://www.kane.k12.ut.us/html/policiesA.htm


In 1984, 1 in 2000, (about 240) students in Utah were beaten according to completely optional government surveys. The number does not show the number of instances these students were beaten. Furthermore, the Office of Civil Rights considers the optional surveys to be a significant underestimate.

On top of the disgusting policies of public schools like San Juan and Kane, Utah's law and State Board regulations have no effect on school beatings in private schools. In fact, the government does not collect statistics on hitting in private schools, so there is no way to know for sure whether it is being used.

Graduates from private boarding schools for American Indians remember "the 'hotline' in which the offending student was forced to walk a gauntlet of classmates wielding belts or sticks or hairbrushes."

"The girls had to walk the gauntlet and get the backs of their legs switched, and if the switcher was too light on the switch, they had to do it hard. These girls had legs that were swollen three times their size" (American Indians Describe School Beatings , By Matt Kelley, The Associated Press , April 24, 1999)

In 2006 SURVEY USA found that only a tiny minority - 15% - of Utah citizens supported corporal punishment in school. Why should their unfortunate children be humiliated in front of their protected classmates?

The poll's results show that Utah legislators have a responsibility to enforce the will of the overwhelming majority of its citizens and free children once and for all from the threat of school beatings.


NOTES:

"Hands Off Those Students," Salt Lake City Tribune, January 23 1997 http://www.corpun.com/ussc9701.htm

Utah House Education Committee, Representative Gregory H. Hughes, Chair Republican - District 51 http://www.le.state.ut.us/house/members2005/bios2005.asp?id=51

For the other members, click on Committee Membership: http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/Interim/Commit.asp?Year=2007&Com=HSTEDU

ON THE CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS' OPPOSITION TO CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:

On the Matter of Spanking by Glenn I. Latham , http://deseretbook.com/mormon-life/news/story?story_id=754 Joseph F Smith's biography , http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/people/joseph_fielding_smith.html Parenting the Lord's Way by Allen Leigh , http://www.shire.net/mormon/parent.html The Book of Mormon's Opposition to Corporal Punisment , an essay , http://www.nopaddle.com/frames.asp?ch=11&se=127 <===(click next page at the bottom to go to the next page of the essay) Discipline and the Plan of Salvation by Nola Redd , http://lds.families.com/blog/discipline-and-the-plan-of-salvation


And a long diatribe against corporal punishment in Utah schools is relevant to a police action that allegedly used too much force ... exactly how? Maybe there is something to a 'culture' of abuse in Utah, but I think that is quite the stretch to make that connection. 216.228.146.88 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

website[edit]

Someone necessarily assist to make significantly posts I would state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point? I surprised with the research you made to make this actual submit extraordinary. Great task!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_party_broken_up_by_police_in_Utah,_USA&oldid=4729641"